Actually, I did check out the stats prior to posting (Baseballefence.com is the best baseball reference website, no?), and the point of my comparing the two is that Nettles, who played longer, had similar career stats. I'll grant you that Santo was the better 3rd baseman. But are his stats truly HOF material? When comparing him to Schmidt, Mathews, Traynor, Robinson, and Brett, I say no. I have no idea why George Kell is in, although I'll assume it was because of injuries (like Oliva); same thing with Baker and Lindstrom. I mean, Santo's 162 game averages were only 26 2b, 25 hr and 96 rbi for a power hitter.
I really don't know - is the push for Santo primarily for his tremendous fielding? His fielding ptc. is lower than that of the 5 primary HOF 3rd baseman except Traynor, who by all accounts made spectacular plays using lesser equipment on poorer fields (and was a superior hitter).
"...is the push for Santo primarily for his tremendous fielding? His fielding ptc. is lower than that of the 5 primary HOF 3rd baseman except Traynor, who by all accounts made spectacular plays using lesser equipment on poorer fields (and was a superior hitter)."
I don't put much stock in fielding pct. It doesn't account for range.
I don't think that the Hall should be made up of only outfielders and 1st baseman, who are generally the players that put up bigger career numbers offensively. Is Santo As good as Robinson, Brett, or Schmidt? No, but so what?
I keep going back to this... If a player is dominant at his position for a decade, as Santo was, he should go into the Hall.
I have no idea why George Kell is inI have been a baseball fan since 1972, pouring over stat books from decades before I was born, and I swear, I don't remember even hearing of George Kell before he was voted into the Hall.